Latest Brain Twisters

Latest Brain Twisters

Okay so I put a lot of stock in the notion that serious animal predation occurred. The defense utilized top level experts, like the best of the best, who also said that not all wounds could be definitively identified as animal predation but a large portion could and that it was a mix of large carnivorous animals as well as aquatic animals. So the aquatic animals are self explanatory since the bodies were found in water. What blows my mind are the dog claw marks/canine hairs found on bodies. Okay so boys are killed or rendered unconscious somewhere that large carnivorous animals (like a German Shepherd sized dog or other feral mutts) can get to the bodies and claw around/lick blood off them? That didn't happen under water. Where did these kids lay without being found long enough to get predated on by dogs? In that drainage pipe that runs off the discovery ditch? A junkyard? Under a bridge? In a different part of the woods?

Also, do you think the killer(s) moved the bodies bc they came back to their hiding spot and found the boys being predated on? Is it possible the gunshots heard by RC & friends were from the killer scaring wildlife away from the bodies so he/they could move them? It definitely adds credibility to the killer(s) knowing those kids otherwise once you kill them & half ass hide them you're gonna bounce, not caring if dogs eat them or not and also not caring if they are found right in the woods or not, there's no link to you if you're a stranger. Also on an old post where TJ Wilford got on here and was talking to ppl some other local kid now adult from the area said strays used to be allover RHH. It really makes you wonder where those kids were laying before they were moved into the water and how long they were laying there.

If the water level was low on the evening of the 5th, I think Hobbs came back to adjust the bodies. He claims he was in there all night, he had opportunity. I also think the footprint impression on one boy's head is indicative of an attempt to hide that body deeper. The land animal predation could have occurred while the bodies weren't totally submerged.

Hobbs came running back to Jacoby and Hicks Sr when they were searching not far from where the bodies were discovered, he claimed he heard an evil sound. I think that noise could have been a dog growling.

I think that even after daylight the next day, the search was hindered because it was for the three boys on two bikes/with two bikes...that that's the primary reason their bodies weren't discovered until that afternoon.

That is really interesting PsychoRabbit on the WMPD bringing up animal predation to the SDPD. Man, the WMPD/prosecution buried that noise pretty quickly. So bizarre to me that they started out with at least an attempt at an investigation and then only ran with what fit on crazed satanists in the woods. I mean I've only seen a few post mortem pics, mostly from the docs and it's hard to see anything beyond grotesque stiff bodies on the bank but from the few pics left on the internet I've definitely seen obvious turtle marks and some dog claw marks. I don't really think dogs went to town on the bodies though. I think dogs moved the bodies around to lick up blood and lick blood off of the corpses. I have had dogs all of my life and they are super into bodily fluids of all varieties. They will go to great links to get anything from a kleenex out of the trash to trying to clean your wounds for you. It is still kind of a strange scenario for me because obviously those kids had to have been laying somewhere that a dog or dogs could easily get to licking them/pawing at them yet people were also searching the woods for them so I'm not exactly sure how no one found them unless they were covered up pretty well which is definitely a likely scenario. That ditch was shallow so maybe they were in there and attracting wildlife and the killer(s) then decided to push them into the mud to keep them underneath which would have taken away some of the ability for an animal to sniff them out, especially if the blood had been all licked up/bodies licked. Personally I don't think they were in the water when the canine predation occurred. I just can't picture dogs getting down into the water and possibly even going under it to grab bodies. I think maybe the bodies were left under some heavy brush and covered by it but the killer knew daylight would expose the bodies easily so he decided the water was the best option to delay discovery. I've never thought this killer(s) wanted to have the bodies found quickly. In fact, had the bodies not been discovered the next day I believe the killer(s) may have ended up burying those bodies somewhere a lot more isolated than a shallow drainage ditch.

GreatKate wrote:injury to Chris and blood loss before any 'animal predation' occurred. Eyes wide open people.

Keep the board/story alive in THEIR NAME ONLY! Pure as the driven snow!

Last post on the bugle,
Some things never change!

Never cared for games they played!
So close no matter how far, couldn't be more from the heart.
Never cared for what they did, never cared for what they knew.

Rest in peace the real west Memphis three Stevie, Christopher and Micheal. X

Oh I always keep them in my thoughts. That is why I deeply question things in regards to this case. I live about two miles from Christopher's burial site. I have to drive by it multiple times a week so it would be impossible for me to just forget them. I have no doubts that Chris suffered a great amount of blood loss before death, he wouldn't have been pale had he not. There are so many unanswered questions about their post mortem bodies though so the details are hairy at best. They had head wounds, some people get a head wound and bleed profusely. I don't think there is any definitive proof that the emasculation was before death/that is caused his death. I could be wrong and would be happy to check out any links sent my way as to proof of otherwise but from what I've read there are mixed opinions. I just tend to side with the top level experts on that one. I have heard there are genuine stab wounds in his groin area it's just that his penis was emasculated by a turtle and that makes sense as well, I mean blood seeping from the groin would attract aquatic wildlife to his private area and go at whatever was easy to grab around that blood.

regi wrote:I think if the bodies had been clothed, there still would have been post mortem animal predation.

Me too, I mean blood is blood and animals are animals. Some clothing will not get between something like a German Shepherd or coyote and something as tempting as blood/open wounds/possible feces/vomit. It's a horrifying thought but it is definitely the reality. I wish there were a way to take original post mortem photos and patch out every wound almost sure to be animal predation and see what we are left with. I think it would be extremely simplistic. From reading about the wounds and the shape of the bodies it really sounds as if their faces/necks were where the brute force was focused. I don't think it was a professional execution or anything but I definitely think it started as rage but quickly turned to efficiency, like the perp(s) caught them doing something or the perp(s) got caught doing something and freaked out, or even a perp was about to molest or rape them but ran out of time/heard people in RHH calling for the boys. Maybe he/they toyed with them by making them get naked and laughing at them or knowing it would keep them in the woods bc no one is going to run off naked (although I really don't buy that bc 8 year old kids aren't typically as modest bc they haven't fully developed yet so modesty hasn't kicked in as hard yet either.) Either way, I think those kids were either already naked or made to get naked for some unknown reason as a part of taunting/sexual molestation and then the perp(s) knew it had gone way too far and once he/they knew they had to kill them and I think they had limited items to use as weapons and one of the perps knew beating an animal, including a human, in the back of the skull with a blunt object or stomping the heads with a boot would do them in and that is what happened. A punishment/taunting and a quick skull beating to death or near death. Then for time reasons I think the bodies may have been left in the woods, under cover of brush, checked on multiple times until the perp(s) felt very secure in putting them in the drainage ditch, maybe soon after the murders, maybe hours and hours later, not sure of the time and that is why the dog hair really perplexes me bc I don't think the dogs got in the ditch to lick the blood off of them/paw at them.

EvilGenius, I think there would have been animal predation regardless of any prior injury.
As for animal hair, I don't know (or don't remember) the facts and circumstances surrounding that, but in that environment, I wouldn't be surprised to find that that water could/would have contained such from all sorts of animal life.

regi wrote:EvilGenius, I think there would have been animal predation regardless of any prior injury.
As for animal hair, I don't know (or don't remember) the facts and circumstances surrounding that, but in that environment, I wouldn't be surprised to find that that water could/would have contained such from all sorts of animal life.

Very true, the animal hair could have come from the water itself and the claw marks could be turtle claws. I wish a lot of things about the wmpd but definitely wish they would have filmed the ground surrounding the discovery ditch, see how many dog/raccoon/coyote tracks were around. I think there is a chance those animals would have cleaned up that area pretty well if it were the crimescene, if it was super bloody--head wounds aren't always bloody (as I learned from watching that latest Jon Benet Ramsey investigation show.)

john nickerson wrote:Lucas described what Hobbs did to Chris and there is no way in hell that the information in those two affidavits could've been cobbled together back in 95.

Yeah, I'm a pretty big fan of the puzzle, it works in my mind better than any other recent theory. I'm still trying to go through any questions that pop up in my mind and try to look at them in an unbiased manner. Like with this question I needed some perspective bc I want to try to reconcile in my mind that the dumpsite is the general area where they were murdered or if there is no way and they were killed deeper in the woods and drug over to the water.

john nickerson wrote:I collaborated with the author of the puzzle for over a year. KC Miller even came to this group to answer any questions anybody had.

I followed your FB page I think about a month or so ago. People have a hard time with the puzzle but I had the opposite reaction, I thought it made perfect sense. Fayetteville, AR is much more liberal than West Memphis but even Fayetteville has those areas where married "straight" men go hang out at night or on their lunch breaks. Being caught by your stepson is great motivation. I definitely have questions still but not nearly as many as I normally have when a new theory comes out.

Like with this question I needed some perspective bc I want to try to reconcile in my mind that the dumpsite is the general area where they were murdered or if there is no way and they were killed deeper in the woods and drug over to the water.

Well, it's always appeared to me that the murders occurred somewhere within those woods where the bodies were found, but I've never been able to wrap my head around the notion that the perp returned later to better hide the bodies.
As for injuries attributable to animal predation, to me, there's nothing- or there's not enough- to indicate that those occurred before the bodies were put into that ravine.